The Guinness Partnership Limited (202341163)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341163

The Guinness Partnership Limited

12 March 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of an electrical house fire.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bed house owned by the landlord. She lives with her children. Her youngest son has ADHD, and there are known mental health conditions in the family.
3. The resident called the landlord on 13 December 2023 to report that all lights in her property were flickering and that she had prior issues with the meters and electrics. Its call handler told her this was not an emergency and ended the call. Within an hour, an electrical fire started in the fuse box. The fire service attended and found the electricity supply was the source of ignition.
4. On 15 December 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the way it handled her first call. She felt it was responsible for the fire and wanted it to admit liability for the loss of her possessions.
5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 9 January 2024. It said that its employee had provided her with incorrect advice and that it investigated this internally. It said the fire service did not find any faults, so it was unable to take responsibility for the fire. It offered £150 compensation and arranged to visit the property on 12 January 2024 to assess the required works.
6. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 9 January 2024 as she was unhappy that the landlord could not say who was responsible for the fire. She also felt that its offer of compensation was not high enough to cover her losses.
7. In its stage 2 response of 13 February 2024, the landlord said it was still unable to determine liability for the fire. It shared that it did not find any required actions during its most recent wiring test at her property in February 2023. It explained the required works at her property and that she may need a temporary move. It said that it could not consider compensation for damaged items but increased its overall offer to £225 for complaint handling delays (£50), poor communication (£75) and a gesture of goodwill (£100).
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s inability to determine liability for the fire and the amount of compensation offered. As such, she brought her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. During a telephone call with the resident on 6 March 2025, we explained that we are unable to decide who is liable for the fire starting. Under paragraph 42.o. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this is not an outcome that is within our authority to provide. However, we will assess the landlord’s response to the fire and the prior communication issues.
10. The resident has also told the landlord and the Ombudsman that the fire has had a severe effect on her and her family’s mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness, including mental health. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Electrical fire

11. In the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, it sets 2 repairs categories. Emergency repairs address an immediate health and safety risk, and it will attend these within 24 hours of the report. Routine repairs are those that are not emergencies and it will attend these within 28 calendar days.
12. Also in this policy, the landlord includes a complete loss of power as an emergency. It does not specify any other issues with electricity, except where there is a leak or flood that causes a risk of electric shock.
13. The resident’s call to the landlord was around 4pm on 13 December 2023. She reported that the lights in her property were flickering and that she had previously had problems with the electrics and meters. It told her that this was not an emergency and to call back out of hours. There is no record that it logged her call or raised a repair at this time.
14. The landlord may not have categorised the resident’s first call as an emergency under its repairs policy. However, it failed to record the call or raise a repair for this to be investigated at all which was not in line with the policy, which states it will try to arrange a date and time for repairs the first time a customer reports the issue, or as soon as practicable thereafter.
15. On 14 December 2023, the landlord inspected the resident’s property and found necessary works required. These included a full rewire of the property, a replacement mains board and meters and a full redecoration of the downstairs rooms. This was a fast response and in line with its repairs policy.
16. The landlord logged a complaint for the resident on 14 December 2023 about its handling of her report and who was at fault for the fire. She felt that if it had managed her report differently, the fire may not have happened. It told her on 18 December 2023 that there would be a delay in providing its response due to the imminent Christmas period. This was fair and showed its willingness to manage her expectations.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response of 9 January 2024, the landlord agreed that it had not addressed her concerns or followed its processes correctly on 13 December 2024. It said that the employee concerned was now under performance review and that it offered more training. However, it explained that it was unable to say whether it would have arrived before the fire started as its emergency response time is within 24 hours.
18. The landlord also said that its most recent fixed wire test in the resident’s property of February 2023 had found no immediate or mandatory required actions. It offered compensation of £150, £50 for poor communication and £100 as a gesture of goodwill. It said its next visit would be 12 January 2024 to assess for required works.
19. The landlord’s complaint response was fair and thorough. It acknowledged the poor service it had provided to the resident. It correctly referred to its repairs policy to explain that it could not be certain it would have arrived before the fire started. Its offer of compensation was fair and in line with its policy, which allows for goodwill gestures when it is not at fault to recognise a shortcoming in its service delivery.
20. Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 for the reasons previously outlined, the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 13 February 2024. It repeated its reasons for finding failure in its handling of her first report on 13 December 2023. It referred to the fire service incident report and correctly said that this did not place liability for the consumer unit fire on any party. It therefore found no failing in relation to this.
21. Also, the landlord’s response confirmed the required works and that it was considering a temporary move for the resident and her children during the completion of these. It said that as it was unable to take liability for the fire, it was unable to consider compensation for damaged belongings and that she would have to claim damages from her contents insurance for this. It made an increased compensation offer of £225, £100 of which was a gesture of goodwill and £75 for poor communication. This replaced its stage 1 offer of £150.
22. The landlord’s complaint response was reasonable. It provided detailed information about all the resident’s concerns and thoroughly explained the required works in her home. The evidence in this case does show that it was aware she did not have contents insurance ahead of providing this response and as such, its recommendation to follow this procedure was insensitive. However, this is not a failing. Its increased offer of compensation remained fair.
23. The evidence in this case shows that the landlord’s customer liaison officer worked tirelessly to support the resident in the aftermath of the fire. It worked to arrange necessary payments to her and was a single point of contact for all her concerns, while pushing forward inspections and works. The officer demonstrated exceptionally good practice, and we must commend this.
24. Overall, while we do not doubt that this was an incredibly distressing event for the resident and her children, the landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its policies. It acknowledged poor communication during her first call and dealt with this appropriately. We understand why she feels that the fire may have been avoidable if it managed the call differently. However, it is correct in saying that it cannot guarantee it would have arrived before the fire started.
25. It was also fair of the landlord not to offer compensation for damages to the resident’s belongings. We understand that this will be disappointing, but the landlord’s compensation policy encourages residents to take out contents insurance against loss, fire, floor, or accidental damage. The policy states that it will not offer compensation when circumstances beyond its control caused the damage or loss.

 Complaint handling

26. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 days of receipt and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. At both stages, if it requires more time to investigate, it can extend the response time by 10 working days and will explain this to the complainant where necessary.
27. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response 14 working days after receipt. This was a small delay and was just outside of its policy response timescale. It did not acknowledge this in its response. While the delay was minor and appears to be due to the scale of its overall response to the fire, it would have been good practice for it to apologise for this in the circumstances.
28. The landlord’s provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response outside of its policy timescale. In this response it acknowledged the delays at stage 1 and apologised for this. It also apologised for finding that she had chased it for a response to her escalation request twice. It did not acknowledge the additional delay in sending its stage 2 response. It offered compensation of £25 for its delayed stage 1 response and £25 for the delay in escalating her complaint.
29. Overall, there were minor delays at every stage of the landlord’s complaints process. This may have been due to the number of departments and work involved in responding to the fire, however, it did not acknowledge all of the delays in its stage 2 complaint response and as such, we will make a further order for compensation in line with its first offer. 

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an electrical house fire.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £100 comprising:
       1. £50 for the delays found in its handling of the resident’s stage 2 response.
       2. £50 as previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its failures in complaint handling at stage 1.
    2. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
    3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

33. We recommend that the landlord pay the resident the remaining amount of £175 from its original compensation offer of £225, if it has not done so already.